Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Ben Levinsky <BLEVINSK@xilinx.com>
To:     Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com>
CC:     "punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp" <punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp>,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xilinx.com>,
        Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mathieu.poirier@linaro.org" <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
        "Ed T. Mooring" <emooring@xilinx.com>,
        "linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jiaying Liang <jliang@xilinx.com>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Jiaying Liang <jliang@xilinx.com>,
        Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>,
        "Ed T. Mooring" <emooring@xilinx.com>, Jason Wu <j.wu@xilinx.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v14 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc
 driver
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v14 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc
 driver
Thread-Index: AQHWjSzx2v36zrUuJk25DA+tFuTaOqltZJcAgAAAbzA=
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 22:18:39 +0000
Message-ID: <BYAPR02MB44073E7A3BEA401FF4684E95B53E0@BYAPR02MB4407.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20200917194341.16272-1-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com>
 <20200917194341.16272-6-ben.levinsky@xilinx.com>
 <20200917221120.GA15530@xaphan>
In-Reply-To: <20200917221120.GA15530@xaphan>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8e67a53f-924f-4740-2e4e-08d85b57a1ad
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Sep 2020 22:18:40.3600
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 657af505-d5df-48d0-8300-c31994686c5c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ylBp/00vcBb9n0cdmGAABLmWnugt7g9WlHnhWNIGaWsrjSvNkTJgncdZYBdzi3rbDmTecUNEMDvyWO031tBDmA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR02MB6961
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the comments,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Auchter <michael.auchter@ni.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 3:11 PM
> To: Ben Levinsky <BLEVINSK@xilinx.com>
> Cc: punit1.agrawal@toshiba.co.jp; Stefano Stabellini <stefanos@xilinx.com=
>;
> Michal Simek <michals@xilinx.com>; devicetree@vger.kernel.org;
> mathieu.poirier@linaro.org; Ed T. Mooring <emooring@xilinx.com>; linux-
> remoteproc@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Jiaying Liang
> <jliang@xilinx.com>; robh+dt@kernel.org; linux-arm-
> kernel@lists.infradead.org; Jiaying Liang <jliang@xilinx.com>; Michal Sim=
ek
> <michals@xilinx.com>; Ed T. Mooring <emooring@xilinx.com>; Jason Wu
> <j.wu@xilinx.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 5/5] remoteproc: Add initial zynqmp R5 remoteproc
> driver
>=20
> Hey Ben,
>=20
> Split mode is still not functional in this patch series (as was the case
> with the last few revisions).
>=20
> Before sending out the next revision, can you _please_ ensure you're
> testing all supported configurations?
>=20
[Ben Levinsky]  I will make sure to update in next revision.
 As per review, I tested on QEMU and hardware firmware loading in split mod=
e on R5 0 split, R5 1 split and R5 lockstep and  was  able to successfully =
load, start and establish IPC links

That being said, I will update the to reflect the values between the enum f=
or rpu operation mode and the documentation in the binding.

For testing, I can provide a pointer to a publicly available device tree I =
am using if that helps. If not, can you expand on the testing of supported =
configurations?

> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:43:41PM -0700, Ben Levinsky wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * RPU core configuration
> > + */
> > +static enum rpu_oper_mode rpu_mode;
> > +
>=20
> <.. snip ..>
>=20
> > +static int zynqmp_r5_remoteproc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	int ret, i =3D 0;
> > +	u32 lockstep_mode;
> > +	struct device *dev =3D &pdev->dev;
> > +	struct device_node *nc;
> > +
> > +	ret =3D of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node,
> > +				   "lockstep-mode",
> > +				   &lockstep_mode);
> > +	if (ret < 0) {
> > +		return ret;
> > +	} else if (lockstep_mode !=3D PM_RPU_MODE_LOCKSTEP &&
> > +	    lockstep_mode !=3D PM_RPU_MODE_SPLIT) {
> > +		dev_err(dev,
> > +			"Invalid lockstep-mode %x in %pOF\n",
> > +			lockstep_mode, dev->of_node);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	rpu_mode =3D lockstep_mode;
> > +
> > +	dev_dbg(dev, "RPU configuration: %s\n",
> > +		lockstep_mode ? "lockstep" : "split");
>=20
> The binding documents lockstep-mode as:
>=20
> > +  lockstep-mode:
> > +    description:
> > +      R5 core configuration (split is 0 or lock-step and 1)
> > +    maxItems: 1
>=20
will update this as you note so that lockstep and split mode are accurately=
 reflected.=20

> (Which needs to be reworded, but it looks like the intent was "split is
> 0 and lock-step is 1")
>=20
> However, rpu_oper_mode is defined as:
>=20
> > +enum rpu_oper_mode {
> > +       PM_RPU_MODE_LOCKSTEP =3D 0,
> > +       PM_RPU_MODE_SPLIT =3D 1,
> > +};
>=20
> so the assignment "rpu_mode =3D lockstep_mode" is incorrect.
>=20
once the binding is updated, why would this still be incorrect? Assuming th=
e documentation is updated, the above line would be ok, right?

Thank you for the review
Ben

> - Michael